A federal appeals court has blocked California state officials from enforcing, for now, any part of a new state law restricting minors' use of social media, as a tech industry group appeals a lower court's decision finding that the law may not necessarily be unconstitutional.
On Jan. 28, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order blocking enforcement of the law known as SB976 until the court completes its review of the law on appeal.
At the same time, the court agreed to speed up its handling of the case, and has placed the matter on its April calendar.
Paul Taske
| NetChoice
The unsigned order was handed down by Ninth Circuit judges Richard A. Paez, Jay S. Bybee and Eric D. Miller.
An attorney leading the challenge to SB976 on behalf the organization known as NetChoice said in statement following the issuing of the Ninth Circuit's order that they are "grateful that the Ninth Circuit agreed to halt SB 976 in its entirety while our case proceeds."
"This law has serious implications for Californians’ First Amendment and digital privacy rights. NetChoice looks forward to stopping yet another online censorship regime from California’s government," said the organization's Associate Director of Litigation Paul Taske.
NetChoice, an association representing the interests of a consortium of tech companies, social media platforms and online marketplaces, launched the legal challenge to SB976 in November, about a month and a half before the law was scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2025.
California state lawmakers enacted the measure at the urging of state Attorney General Rob Bonta and other officials who said the law is needed to protect children's mental health and wellbeing against "addictive algorthmic feeds, notifications and other addictive design features to coerce children and teens to spend hours and hours on their platforms."
Supporters have dubbed the law the "Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act."
Under the law, social media platform operators would be required to obtain clear consent from parents for any users identified as being under the age of 18, or social media companies could be compelled to limit those users to "an algorithmically determined feed of content" supposedly less addictive for young users.
The law would also force social media companies to establish default settings for known or suspected minor users to "limit the child's access to any addictive feed" from a platform to one hour per day, unless a parent or guardian says otherwise; to "limit the visibility of likes and other engagement metrics that contribute to an addictive social media experience;" and "select a private mode, where only the user's connections can view or respond to content posted by the child," among other rules.
The law would require social media companies to require all users to prove they are not minors to avoid such restrictions.
SB976 would also impose a host of other responsibilities on social media companies, including requiring them to track how many users under the age of 18 use their products and then report that data annually to the state of California.
While Bonta and other supporters of the legislation say it is needed to protect children online, NetChoice and social media companies said the law is merely an attempt by the state of California to continue efforts to restrict speech online.
NetChoice has described the measure as "a dangerous precedent that undermines core principles of free speech and privacy for all Californians."
"SB 976 forces the online companies covered to create significant barriers for Californians, restricting their access to lawful content unless they hand over sensitive, personal documentation. The law’s carve-outs are less about online safety and more about establishing a digital surveillance state, censoring free speech and targeting certain businesses," NetChoice said in a release when it filed suit.
They asserted the age verification steps required by the law amount to an unconstitutional violation of everyone's rights to speak online and access the content they wish.
Judge Edward Davila said he believed he and other judges will need to wait to see how California actually intends to police social media usage before he can decide if the law is actually unconstitutional. Specifically, the judge said he will need to wait for California to enact specific rule and regulations before courts can determine the constitutionality of SB976 and its age verification requirements.
The judge, however, said he believed the law went too far in requiring social media companies to turn over data on user activity to the state and in setting time limits on push notifications sent to young users by social media companies.
However, Davila said the rest of the law could still be enforced as the larger constitutional challenge plays out in court.
The judge, however, put the law on hold in its entirety until at least Feb. 1, to allow the Ninth Circuit a chance to weigh in.
After NetChoice appealed Davila's ruling, the Ninth Circuit then essentially continued that hold until at least April, when it can consider the appeal.
NetChoice is represented in the action by attorneys Steven P. Lehotsky, Scott A. Keller, Jeremy Evan Maltz, Shannon Grammel, Joshua P. Morrow and Jared B. Magnuson, of the firm of Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP, of Washington, D.C.; Austin, Texas; and Atlanta; and Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay, of the Benbrook Law Group, of Sacramento.